Space law can't be used as justification to create/defend bans, and neither can it be used to defend your actions. It's a roleplaying suggestion, but it has no relevance to our rules. Speaking of Space Law, the page for it says this, and everyone who cited it in this thread should keep it in mind:
If you cite Space Law in an adminhelp or anywhere outside IC communications, you will be laughed at. That being said, this ban was less about space law and more about how you played security. What I mean by this isn't that you have a poor history with security and this was just another run-in with it - in fact you have no prior administrative history as security, even if your playstyle is rather questionable.
The issue is more that you decided to cremate someone for having all access, about 20 minutes after they grabbed it, because it's a capital offense under Space Law. We expect players in security roles to have a better understanding of punishments for people than valid vs. not valid. Having all access is a pretty serious offense, but it doesn't warrant instant cremation. It's telling how you didn't take time to attempt to process the prisoner, or even just kill them without cremating them. It was a jump from stunning to permanent round removal. You use rule 4 to justify what you did, but the act of possessing all access is not in itself acting like an antagonsit. This is not good faith security play, and it's not the sort of behavior that we want to encourage, either.
The biggest defense here for your actions is rule 1 precedent 5:
Players who attempt to break into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, or the bridge at or near roundstart for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk for being legitimately killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security.
This is relevant as Janice was part of a group of people who busted the captain's locker open in bridge near the start of the round.
The reason why we have this protection in place for heads of staff and security is because there's always that round where some shitter hacks open some door in bridge or captain's quarters and all hell breaks loose. In situations like these, security needs the extra leeway to defend themselves and heads of staff from people breaking in. However, this same privilege granted to security does not carry over 15-20 minutes after the crime has happened, especially if the person has not acted antagonistic since then. Sure, the criminal is still open to full punishment - the factor of time does not change this. However, taking it upon yourself to stun + cremate them as soon as you find them is excessive behavior that stems from approaching the game from a validhunting mindset. Such an approach to the situation wasn't the right response and, dare I say, violated the spirit of the precedent.
As for Anuv's involvement in this, there is no fault to be had in his part. He ahelped your actions in a situation that he thought was excessive and unreasonable. His ahelp was phrased as a question and his actions seem to be in good faith. I would likely have considered Anuv's ahelp banbaiting if he were acting antagonistic for the greater part of the round, but that's not the case. Regardless, your unrelenting zeal to see Anuv punished for ahelping makes this seem like this thread was partially motivated by the desire to have him banned. This isn't what this forum is for, ban requests are closed and it's going to stay that way.
Your appeal is denied.
